The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 29 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 January 2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, in paragraph [0004], 5th line therein, note that the recitation of “resistance and capacitance” should be rewritten as --on resistance and off capacitance-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 2, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 2, in paragraph [00012], last line therein, note that --, where like features are denoted by the same reference labels throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “below” for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [00017], 5th line therein, note that the term “via” should be deleted as being unnecessary; 16th line therein, note that --(PA)-- should be inserted after “amplifier” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 1. Page 6, in paragraph [00023], 7th line therein, note that --(ce)-- should be inserted after “collector/emitter” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 2; 8th line therein, note that --(cb)-- should be inserted after “collector/base” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in FIG. 2. Page 9, in paragraph [00031], 13th line therein; page 9, in paragraph [00032], third line therein; page 12, in paragraph [00042], third line therein: note that --as shown in FIG. 2-- should be inserted after “]” (in paragraph [00031]), inserted after “200” (i.e. in paragraph [00032]) and inserted after “RFin” (i.e. in paragraph [00042]), respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 9, in paragraph [00033], 6th line therein and page 10, in paragraph [00036], first line therein, note that --of FIG. 2-- should be inserted after “202” (i.e. in paragraph [00033]) and inserted after “200” (i.e. in paragraph [00036]), respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 9, in paragraph [00033], third line therein and page 10, in paragraph [00036], second line therein, note that --of FIG. 3-- should be inserted after “312” (i.e. in paragraph [00033]) and inserted after “300” (i.e. in paragraph [00036]), respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 10, in paragraph [00036], second line therein, note that --of FIG. 4-- should be inserted after “400” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 5th line therein, note that --respectively-- should be inserted prior to “shown” for an appropriate characterization. Page 11, in paragraph [00038], first line therein, note that the term “in” should be rewritten as --with-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 12, in paragraph [00044], third line therein, note that --with respect to FIG. 2-- should be inserted after “above” for an appropriate characterization. Page 14, in paragraph [00051], 5th & 6th lines therein, note that the recitation of “the terms first, second, third and so forth” should be rewritten as --the terms “first”, “second”, “third” and so forth-- for an appropriate characterization. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 7, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to how such a circuit would be operable as a “multiplexer” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 8, note that it is unclear as to what would characterize “an output signal” relative to the various “signals” previously recited (i.e. input signal, first signal, second signal, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by either Hyoung et al or Allen et al.
Hyoung et al (i.e. FIG. 1) and Allen et al (i.e. Fig-2) discloses a circuit, comprising: a 90° coupler (i.e. coupler (100) in Hyoung et al; hybrid coupler (12a) in Allen et al), where an input signal (i.e. input (IN) in Hyoung et al; input signal (S1) in Allen et al) is applied, and having a first output (e.g. output terminal (A) in Hyoung et al; unlabeled in Allen et al) and a second output (i.e. output terminal (B) in Hyoung et al; unlabeled in Allen et al); a first plurality of transistors (e.g. transistors (Q1, Q2) in Hyoung et al; FET switches (28a, 30a) in Allen et al) coupled to the first output and a second plurality of transistors (e.g. transistors (Q3, Q4) in Hyoung et al; FET switches (40a, 42a) in Allen et al) coupled to the second output. During operation, the first and second plurality of transistors {(Q1, Q2; Q3, Q4) in Hyoung et al; (28a, 30a, 40a, 42a)} can have respective control signals (e.g. first/second control signal (C1, C2) in Hyoung et al; first/second control signals (CONTROL 1, CONTROL 2) in Allen et al} applied to the corresponding transistors, such that a signal can be selectively coupled between the first terminal and an output (i.e. output terminal (OUT) in Hyoung et al; output port (48a) in Allen et al) or selectively coupled between the second terminal and the output (OUT in Hyoung et al; 48a in Allen et al) depending on the applied control signals {(C1, C2) in Hyoung et al; (CONTROL1, CONTROL 2) in Allen et al} to provide a nominal 90° phase shift (i.e. by virtue of the 90° coupler) and therefore the selective signal coupling can thus be characterized as a multiplexer (i.e. more specifically, a diplexer) in each of Hyoung et al or in Table 2 of Allen et al.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Hyoung et al or Allen et al.
Note that each one of the Hyoung et al or Allen et al reference discloses the claimed 90° phase shift, except for the plus or minus 3° tolerance. Although, each reference does not explicitly disclose any tolerance in the 90° phase shift, it is known in the art to have designed such couplers to have a desirable degree of tolerance (e.g. such as + 3° of tolerance), thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang et al (i.e. FIG. 1) discloses a phase shifter including a 0°/90° phase splitter with outputs coupled to transistors (e.g. FIG. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights